Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Pandarus' Final Bow

Text message from the Inaugural Committee:

"Barack Obama is now the 44th President of the United States. Please stay & watch the parade on the jumbotrons. Encourage your neighbors to exit the Mall slowly."


And speaking of exits, President Obama is escorting Mr. and Mrs. Bush from the Capitol to the helicopter which will take them to Andrews Air Force Base and a plane waiting to carry them back to Texas. As George Bush departs the scene, I am forcefully reminded of these lines:

What verse for it? What instance for it? Let me see:

"Full merrily the humblebee doth sing
Till he hath lost his honey and his sting,
And being once subdued in armed tale,
Sweet honey and sweet notes together fail."

As many be here of Pander's hall, Your eyes half out, weep out at Pander's fall. Or if you cannot weep, yet give some groans,
Though not for me, yet for your aching bones...Till then I'll sweat, and seek about for eases,
And at that time bequeath you my diseases.


~ William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, Act V, Scene X

Sunday, January 18, 2009

The Farewell Speech Bush Should Have Given

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 2

George W. Bush gave his farewell speech last Thursday night. In many ways, it was the predictably clueless utterance of a president still incapable of recognizing his shortcomings and those of his administration, and unrepentant about the cost to the country and the world of his eight years in office.

So, since George W. Bush was unwilling or unable to candidly address his legacy, I have taken it upon myself to draft the speech he should have made last week. This is the speech he owed us.

Fellow Americans, and fellow citizens of the world, tonight I stand before you for the last time as President of the United States. The eight years of my administration have been turbulent, and many have wondered whether my untroubled demeanor during my time in office has demonstrated the calm certainty of one who has the courage of his convictions, or the delusional numbness of an incurious and epically untalented leader isolated within the confines of a political and psychological bubble. 

History will render its verdict, of course. And it is to aid that final judgment that I stand before all of you tonight to tell you that in so many of the areas where I believed myself to be right, and where all of those around me whom I trusted assured me I was right, I must now, finally, acknowledge that I have been wrong. With distressing frequency, I have been fatally and disastrously wrong.

I came into office in 2000, of course, not as the result of victory at the polls, but rather at the fiat of an impetuous and misguided Supreme Court. Rather than acknowledging the trauma which the manner of my taking office inflicted upon our political institutions and civil society and endeavoring to heal those rifts, I unleashed a political operation from within the White House to fracture our country to the greatest extent possible, playing each side against every other side, knowing that the resulting tumult would leave me the freer to act as I would, regardless of the opinion of the majority. Indeed, the thinking went, when voters are split into microcosms of narrow interests, there is no majority. That was our strategy, and in the early years of my term, it worked only too well. 

Our strategy worked so well, in fact, that I was able to squander a trillion dollar surplus with a tax giveaway to the wealthy like none other the world had ever seen. I was able to shred years of patient and skillful diplomacy that led the world tantalizingly near to a serious consensus to arrest the causes and begin to reverse the effects of global warming. I rolled up and discarded regulatory protections that for more than a half century had safeguarded our economy from the excesses that had too often in the past resulted in boom and bust cycles in which the benefits accrued to the wealthy in good times, and the pain in bad times piled upon the shoulders of the poor and the middle class. 

And then came the attack against our homeland on September 11, 2001. To their everlasting credit, the American people, even in the midst of the horror and loss of that terrible day, overcame the petty and the transient, and united as one people in their resolve to triumph in the face of an unprovoked and dastardly attack. And inspired by the unity and resolve of our people, people all across the world united with us. It was an historic moment of courage and determination across the globe.

With the people united behind us, we took the fight to al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, vowing to never rest until justice had been visited upon those who carried out and aided the attacks against us. But at the very moment we had al-Qaeda’s senior leadership cornered in the caves of Tora Bora, at the very moment when the justice we had vowed was about to be achieved, I, as Commander in Chief, shifted the focus of our armed forces away from the crucial fight in Afghanistan and directed them to begin preparations for war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. 

Our victory over Saddam’s military was swift, and seemed to confirm the rightness of my decision to liberate Iraq. But I cannot deny the disappointment I experienced when it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the lynchpin of my decision to invade, found in Iraq. Many of my advisors assured me that these weapons were in Iraq, and were being aggressively stockpiled by Saddam Hussein. But there were others who cautioned that this might not have been the case, and the fact that they were not heeded, and, indeed, often suffered professional retribution for expressing their view, highlights the fact that my administration, my advisors, and ultimately, I myself, were too hasty in beginning a war that to this day has eluded my ability to honorably end.

The subsequent occupation of Iraq and the chaos and suffering it has brought to the people of that long-oppressed land has been a bitter disappointment to many, and to myself most of all. The men and women of our armed forces have always performed honorably and heroically in executing the mission I, as their Commander in Chief, ordered them to perform. The mismanagement of the occupation, the introduction of al-Qeada into Iraq when it had never been there prior to the invasion, the deprivation and violence experienced by the people of Iraq, the atrocities perpetrated at Abu Ghraib, were the result of no failure on the part of our armed forces, but rather, were the result of failure by senior officials of my administration, and, most of all, by myself, and I take full responsibility for those decisions and their consequences. The burden and blame are mine alone.

And as we struggled to contain crises abroad, we were struck once more by tragedy at home, this time not perpetrated by foreign terrorists, but by Hurricane Katrina. As the storm approached our shores and warnings of the potential for destruction began to be raised, my administration did not fulfill its obligation to protect the people who lay in Katrina’s path. Even as Katrina made landfall and the true scale of the devastation became apparent, the actions of my administration were, again and again, inadequate, belated, and, far too often, just too poorly executed to render the help that the people of the Gulf Coast so badly needed. Once again, these failures were ultimately mine, and, once again, the consequences were ultimately born by others.

The same can also be said of our current economic situation. In my administration’s desire to make good on its promise to reduce the role of government in the lives of the American people, we paid too much heed to the voice of Wall Street, and too little to the voice of Main Street. We cast aside the oversight required to prevent our financial markets from the excesses that, as I speak to you tonight, have brought them to their lowest pass since the 1930s. In doing so, we failed not only Main Street, but also the very Wall Street players we sought to help. The result and the ruin of that decision, the cost in lost jobs and bankrupt companies, lay all around us tonight.

And so it is that, as I leave office in a few days time, our country finds itself with two unfinished wars, the city of New Orleans still stricken years after Katrina made landfall, and our economy in tatters. The solution to all these problems will be left to my successor, and sincerely I wish him well in dealing with them. I have only this council to offer, the lesson I have learned too late as I reflect upon my term of office: all the American people have ever asked of their leaders in times of crisis is the assurance that the work of government will be done competently and impartially, and that the hard work and sacrifice of our people to meet the challenge of the day will not be squandered. 

I have failed the American people in this, and hope and pray that my successor will be able to overcome the staggering challenges he faces as he assumes office. For all of this, to all of you, across our country and in nations around the world, I am so sorry. I am so very, very sorry.


Thursday, May 15, 2008

Talking to Iran: Bush Administration's Divided Voice

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 249

Addressing Israel's national legislative body, the Knesset, today, President Bush spoke these words:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."


Rhetorically, of course, this is known as a straw man argument, in which the speaker posits an opinion held by unnamed persons, and then uses that as an occasion to discredit the argument and cast aspersion upon anyone who might disagree with them. Logically, the straw man argument is categorized as fallacious.

President Bush is an old hand at this practice, so his use of the straw man fallacy comes as no surprise. What ought to cause some astonishment, however, is that the president should engage in this tactic just one day after his own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, had this to say about Iran, one of the nations the president includes in his "Axis of Evil":

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."


Setting aside, for the moment, the central question of whether Bush or Gates is espousing the better policy approach to Iran, let me ask this: is it too much to expect, even from this administration, that the president and his principal adviser on national defense to be on the same page about how to address a critical international challenge?

It is small wonder, in the circumstances, that other nations - both friendly and unfriendly - regard the prospect of diplomacy with this administration with uncertainty, and have lost confidence in the United States as a negotiating partner. Whether by design, or, as is far more likely, by inattention and incompetence, this administration shows, time and again with this as but the latest example, that it cannot be relied upon to speak with a unified voice to the international community. Let me emphasize: this is not an example of the president being contradicted by an opposition member of the House or Senate, but rather the president and his secretary of defense contradicting one another in statements made on successive days.

This appalling spectacle is yet another sad reflection upon the United States, and a further indication, as if one were needed, of the scale of the task looming before the next president of extricating the country from the mire into which George W. Bush and his administration has driven us.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Did Bush Approve Use of Waterboarding? Mukasey Won't Say No.

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 354

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to deny whether the President of the United States had authorized the use of waterboarding in specific instances.

According the UK news site Guardian Unlimited, Mukasey's non-denial occurred during an exchange with California senator Dianne Feinstein:

When Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein asked if the current path to authorising waterboarding - a request from the CIA director, followed by approval from the attorney general, followed by consultation with the president - had applied in the past, Mukasey said yes.

"I should take a step back," he then added. "I'm not authorised to say what happened in the past, but I was told this wasn't news."

Feinstein pointed to the Bush administration's reported admission that the CIA waterboarded at least three senior members of al-Qaida. Given that the outlined process for authorising the tactic would have involved Bush, she repeated, "Did the president approve that?"

Mukasey declined to answer the question.


I believe I understand the basics of the legal concept of sovereign immunity, but it is increasingly difficult, as an American citizen, to explain to friends from other lands - rogue state hotbeds of Anti-Americanism like Canada and the United Kingdom - why it is that our leaders should not be subject to trial as war criminals when subjects like this arise. I say this not to make an argument in favor of war crimes prosecution for American elected officials, but rather to oppose any practices which even suggest that such a thing might be justified. It is deeply disappointing that that no one in the United States government will, nor apparently can, categorically deny that this nation engages in torture.

On a related note, the same hearing yesterday also produced an interesting exchange between Mukasey and Delaware senator Joe Biden on when the attorney general believes the use of torture to be warrented. Quoting from a piece TPM ran yesterday:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said that he'd been getting the impression that Mukasey really thought about torture in relative terms, and wanted to know if that was so. Is it OK to waterboard someone if a nuclear weapon was hidden -- the Jack Bauer scenario -- but not OK to waterboard someone for more pedestrian information?

Mukasey responded that it was "not simply a relative issue," but there "is a statute where it is a relative issue," he added, citing the Detainee Treatment Act. That law engages the "shocks the conscience" standard, he explained, and you have to "balance the value of doing something against the cost of doing it."

What does "cost" mean, Biden wanted to know.

Mukasey said that was the wrong word. "I mean the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it, balanced against the value.... balanced against the information you might get." Information "that couldn't be used to save lives," he explained, would be of less value.

Biden responded, "You're the first I've ever heard to say what you just said.... It shocks my conscience a little bit."


In its coverage of yesterday's hearing the Associated Press reports:

Mukasey, in his third month at the helm of the Justice Department, said he would feel tortured if he, himself, were waterboarded. But he staunchly avoided debating during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing whether waterboarding is legal. Instead, he echoed the Bush administration's long-standing denial of identifying how al-Qaida detainees have been questioned by CIA interrogators.

Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

''Would waterboarding be torture if it was done to you?'' asked Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

''I would feel that it was,'' Mukasey said.


Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. You may step down.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Web Stats: Bush Tanks There, Too

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 356

Following President Bush's last State of the Union address last night, the overwhelming bulk of post-speech commentary in the media (old and new) has been to the effect that everyone - Congress, the press, the vast majority of the American public - has already put this administration in the rear-view mirror and is focused on the question of who will be the next occupant of the oval office.

To be sure, I agree with this assessment, but I've also been curious to see if there would be any way to substantiate it. And so, being, y'know, me, I went hunting today for some numbers to back up or refute the conventional wisdom. And sure enough, the answer, like so many things these days, is to be found on Google.

I decided to punch in a trend search comparing search volumes for President Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and just to provide a baseline for comparison, ultimate political botnet hit-bait Ron Paul. The search compared Google volumes over the past 30 days. The result: Bush comes in dead last. Dead last. Granted, the numbers available today run only through January 26, when Obama stormed to a landslide victory in the South Carolina, and so does not include data for the immediate aftermath of the State of the Union, traditionally an annual high-water mark of Presidential media coverage. But still. President Bush comes in last.

The picture below tells the story. The trend line legend is:
blue = Barack Obama
red = Hillary Clinton
goldenrod = John Edwards
violet = Ron Paul
green = George W. Bush



So, yes, based on these trends, the American people have clearly stopped paying attention to this president in favor of the next president, whomever that turns out to be.

I'll run another trend line in a few days time to track any changes between last Saturday and the last night's State of the Union. Watch this space!

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Florida GOP Chair Lets Slip Plan for Bush Third Term

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 454

Whether he intended to or not, Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer yesterday issued a press statement which seemingly confirms what many people throughout the world have worried may be in the cards: a secret plan to keep George W. Bush in office for a third term.

In a statement responding to the RNC Executive Committee’s recommendation to strip the Florida GOP of half its delegates to next year’s national convention as a penalty for holding the state's primary earlier than party rules allow, Greer said, "While we disagree with the Republican National Committee's recommendation to sanction the state of Florida, at the end of the day this is a disagreement among friends and we recognize that we are all working towards a common goal: re-electing a Republican president in 2008."

Read those words again: "re-electing a Republican president in 2008." A slip of the tongue? Or an inadvertent confirmation of a secret plan for the ultimate circumvention of the Constitution?

OK, so it’s a slip of the tongue. From a GOP state chairman. In, er, Florida, no less. A slip of the tongue. Definitely. I mean, no one would be crazy enough think they could stay in office when the constitution expressly forbids it. Right? I mean, not even George W. Bush. Or…um…Dick Cheney. *starting to sweat* A slip of the tongue. Probably. That’s all. Yes, I’m pretty sure. Or a joke, maybe? *weak laughter*

Yeah, that must be it.


[Note to readers: no, I haven’t been launched on a mission to Planet Kucinich. The Greer press statement is real, and quoted verbatim. But the fuss made about it above is in jest.]

[Note to Kucinich’s people: if you run with this, I want royalties.]

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

President Bush's Iraq Visit

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 503

Of the major Democratic presidential candidates, only Joe Biden and John Edwards have issued reactions to Presiddent Bush's visit to Iraq yesterday. They're both worth a read, and Biden's in particular, as it concisely outlines his Iraq proposals, which I think are the strongest of any candidate's.

Joe Biden

Yesterday we learned that President Bush went to Iraq to survey the situation on the ground first hand. This is good news. The President needs to see what the rest of us have seen and know. While his plan for a surge in Iraq has had limited and temporary military success, it has not brought about the kind of political reconciliation the President and his Cabinet had hoped for.


It is my sincere hope that the President went to Iraq, not with an outcome in mind, but with his eyes open looking to learn the facts on the ground. And the facts are: there is no chance that Iraq can be governed by a strong central government no matter how many troops we have there.

We'll be hearing a lot about the "surge" over the next several weeks, but we all must remember its original purpose: to buy time for the central government in Iraq to get its act together and win the trust of all Iraqis.

That will not happen.

Absent an occupation which we cannot sustain or the return of a dictator which we cannot support, Iraq cannot be governed from the center at this point in its history.

There is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people, no capacity by the government to deliver security and services, and no prospect it will build that trust and capacity any time soon.

I've been making that case for over a year. And so have more and more experts, in and out of government.

Back in November, CIA director Michael Hayden made this very point in a private meeting with the Iraq Study Group. He said "the inability of the [central] government to govern is irreversible." There is no "milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," he said. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government... that cannot function."

Two weeks ago, our entire intelligence community came to the same conclusion. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that "Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and predicted that "the Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next six to twelve months."

As everyone knows, I have offered a plan (PlanForIraq.com) that contains the possibility, not the guarantee, of promoting stability in Iraq as we leave. It's based on the reality that Iraq cannot be governed from the center.

Instead, we have to give its warring factions breathing room in their own regions, with control over the fabric of their daily lives - police, education, jobs, marriage, and religion.

A limited central government would be in charge of truly common concerns, including protecting Iraq's borders and distributing oil revenues.

The good news is: the federal system at the heart of my plan is already in Iraq's constitution and in its laws.

We should refocus our efforts on making federalism work for all Iraqis. It is past time to make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own.


John Edwards
"The situation in Iraq is too serious for any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ photo ops. It's good that the violence is down in Anbar Province, but it's a homogeneous area that lacks the ethnic conflict that's plaguing the rest of the country. Iraq needs a comprehensive political solution and our brave troops deserve better than more of the president's rhetoric that clings to a failed strategy.

"Sadly, now more than ever, we know this president will stop at nothing to keep his failed Iraq strategy going. As we recently learned, the president is so confident Congress won’t stand up to him in this fall’s funding decisions that he’s actually going to increase his request to fund the surge by another $50 billion—on top of the original $147 billion supplemental he requested.

“This week, when Congress returns, they will have to confront President Bush's failed Iraq strategy head on. Enough is enough.

"When Congress comes back, they should stand firm: No timeline, no funding. No excuses."

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

2008: How Desperate are Republicans?

Days Until Bush Leaves Office = 573

The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Or so says Sally Quinn in an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, shockingly titled, "A GOP Plan to Oust Cheney."

Are things really that bad among Republicans? You bet they are. The GOP is still reeling from its epic defeat in last year's elections, and lives in daily dread of next year's contest for the White House. It isn't hard to understand why.

Just take a look at the candidates fielded by each party. For the Democrats: Joe Biden, a Senator with awesome policy chops; Hillary Clinton, already a political legend whose star is in all probability still rising; Chris Dodd, who is rapidly becoming a one-man idea factory in this campaign; John Edwards, with proven populist appeal; Barack Obama, the ultimate political rock star; and Bill Richardson, with as impressive a resume as any person who has ever sought the Oval Office. For the Republicans: a crop of anonymous pols so generic and colorless that one of their own number coined the definitive collective moniker of dismissal for them all: Rudy McRomney.

But back to Sally Quinn. Surveying the beleaguered state of the current administration, Quinn recalls an anecdote concerning a previous Republican disaster in office, Richard Nixon, who, as an aside, is starting to look pretty good in comparison to George W. Bush. In Quinn's story, Barry Goldwater is wrestling with the dilemma of whether it is actually time to deliver the news to Nixon that the angry villagers are in full pitchfork mode and it is time to go. According to Quinn, a similar moment may be at hand for Dick Cheney, with John Warner as the messenger.

But that's not the really desperate part. No, the really desperate part of this story is that Quinn goes on to postulate that Cheney is replaced as Vice President by - wait for it - Fred Thompson, whose rise to power heals the party at a stroke, reverses the country's historically low estimation of the GOP, and allows Thompson to ride his white charger roughshod over all challengers to win the Presidency with ease.

And it appears that some in the GOP are seriously considering the scenario Quinn discusses in her article. But that's not the story. The story is that current circumstances and future prospects are so bad for Republicans (or should that be Republicants?) that they resort to this sort of utter fantasy for comfort.

As the sloganeers of the gun lobby might put it, Dick Cheney will give up his office only when they pry it from his cold, dead hands. That Republicans dream otherwise shows the true extent of their desperation.



Digg!

 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites